Re: [lmap] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-lmap-yang-11: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise <> Thu, 16 March 2017 11:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C6312941C; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 04:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0yHrmZ6L6tgR; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 04:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F2381293E4; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 04:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3457; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1489664835; x=1490874435; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gRuAQlMNFzMd22TIj6o1TOvTdRS8MI4E9GYXxa6JIoc=; b=RKwvyZrIsIW81jCR03IRPU/Kx+6pV4xaR3b5+jeynsbx3G1wUL3JikrX 69vvE0Z/mocYxtUbgGoCQdqxmownJv7Ztg41vc987P2xQHiuzIAthy3oy So2wDtqqB0n7n+Ma2esgSMMaHhotwrdgk8acqBpDEjcpXQ0uIC1poOT09 M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AGAQDeecpY/xbLJq1EGhkBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYQyKmCNcHOQZZMwgg+CDiqFeAKDQBgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUVAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQIBOFELGC5XBgEMCAEBBYlvCA4xsi6KUAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBASCGT?= =?us-ascii?q?oIFgmqCcIdJBYkbhkCMapI+ilaGU4oVgSmIDx84gQQjFggXFYUYHYFkPzUBiUc?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,172,1486425600"; d="scan'208";a="651489906"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Mar 2017 11:47:12 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v2GBlCat022625; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 11:47:12 GMT
To: The IESG <>,, Dan Romascanu <>,,,
References: <> <20170316102616.GC59698@elstar.local>
From: Benoit Claise <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 12:47:09 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170316102616.GC59698@elstar.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [lmap] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-lmap-yang-11: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Large Scale Measurement of Access network Performance <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 11:47:18 -0000

On 3/16/2017 11:26 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 02:27:31AM -0700, Benoit Claise wrote:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> - No objection to the publication, but the following phrasing puzzles
>> me.
>>     It aims to be consistent with the
>>     LMAP Information Model [I-D.ietf-lmap-information-model].
>> Actually, the data model is based on information model, right?
> I changed this to "It is based on the LMAP Information Model []" in
> my sources.
>> >From the charter:
>> 5. The Report protocol and the associated data model: The definition of
>> how the Report is delivered from a MA to a Collector; this includes a
>> Data Model consistent with the Information Model plus a transport
>> protocol (to be selected, perhaps REST-style HTTP(s) or IPFIX).
>> This is reason why the information model is standard track in the
>> charter.
>> Therefore the information model must be a normative reference, right?
> I don't quite understand the logic above. That said, I can go either
> way (means I do not really care whether the reference is in the
> normative of informative section).
The question is: which one is the source of truth? The IM or the DM?

>> - one question about the typedefs naming.
>> It would nice to be able to reuse YANG constructs, typedefs being of
>> them
>> We created with
>> that goal in mind.
>> 	=> insert "identifier"
>> 	=> select typedef
>> Some of the typedefs are so generically named in LMAP YANG module:
>> identifier, tag, cycle-number, wildcard, etc.
>> Do you expect YANG designers to reuse them outside of LMAP? Some of them,
>> I guess so
>> Should the other ones be renamed with LMAP in mind. Ex:
>> lmap-identifier?
>> In other words, are all the ietf-lmap-common.yang typedef common?
> When you reuse definitions from ietf-lmap-common, they will appear in
> your YANG module as:
>       type lmap:identifier;
> Adding lmap to the type name just makes things look unnecessarily
> ugly:
... from a LMAP point of view.
>       type lmap:lmap-identifier;

I come from this angle:
And I search for any identifier typedef I could reuse.
I would prefer to have typedefs called LMAP-xxx is they're not really 

> I am not sure it is useful to speculate who might be reusing what in
> the future. I would rather keep an eye on things and if we observe
> that definitions get reused or duplicated, consider moving these
> definitions into a common place (ietf-yang-types, ietf-inet-types)
> since I do understand that people prefer to not depend on definitions
> contained in some arbitrary YANG modules where maintenance may be less
> clear over time. It may not be bad to spin the common yang types
> document every ~3 years. (But then I also recall that last time the
> nitpicking during the approval process was on types that already
> existed in the first revision and not on the stuff that was added,
> which makes this at times a bit painful.)
You're maybe right.

Regards, B.
>> Editorial:
>> - figure 1
>> OLD: ietf-lmap-comman.yang
>> NEW: ietf-lmap-common.yang
> Already fixed in my sources.
> /js